People ex rel. Mott v. Kalamanka
This text of 112 A.D.2d 720 (People ex rel. Mott v. Kalamanka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court annulled the determination made after a preliminary parole revocation hearing because relator was not afforded the right to be represented at the hearing by an attorney. The sole question before us is whether the court properly directed a new hearing or whether it should have dismissed the parole violation warrant. Here, as in People ex rel. Martinez v New York State Bd. of Parole (56 NY2d 588), there is no indication that the parole authorities acted in bad faith to deny relator his right to a timely hearing. Hence, a new hearing will adequately protect his rights. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Horey, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 A.D.2d 720, 492 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mott-v-kalamanka-nyappdiv-1985.